Shooting my favorite subject again this evening. I like these Spanish Dagger/Spanish Bayonet plants since even if I miss focus by a bit, part of the plant right next to it will still be in focus; it rules out focus error and provides a shot I can evaluate provided there was no motion blur.
Vignette correction is a bit of a dance since there is no lens profile in C1 that maps the light falloff correction specific to this lens. I use the default "Generic" profile and then set the Light Falloff slider to 113. Since this isn't mapped specifically to the lens used, it lightens the exposure away from center too much (a custom lens profile would only lighten the image at the very edges to match this specific lens' vignetting). To mitigate this effect, first have to reduce the overall image exposure a little (or have intentionally underexposed by a third of a stop) to compensate for the vignette being gone. Then I add a circular/oval gradient mask layer and make it pretty large so that it's going off the image in all directions. Using this mask, I darken the exposure away from center a little until the entire image looks uniform.
Overall, I'm beyond happy with the colors the Minolta MC/MD lenses I've tried. On the GFX sensor, they have a very film-like color and rendering that I love. On images taken with the native GF lenses, I can never seem to push the color to the point where they look like Velvia – they start looking fake or "off" to my eye before they get there.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, something is strange is going on there. Look at the optical swirl and perspective change in the corners, particularly the bottom left corner. I've never see that kind of circular swirl on mine. Yours looks like it's showing more of the image circle than it's supposed to even on 44x33. It reminds me of the shots I see with the GFX Pentax 67 focal reducer, the one where the manufacurer overshot the calculations and ended up reducing the image down too far. They still sell it, but with a disclaimer. Could the adapters involved in your setup have the lens too close or too far away from the sensor? Have you tested the MFD to make sure it matches Minolta's specs? Either that or there were some serious improvements made between your version with the metal focus ring and mine with the hard rubber....Show more →
That swirl before the hard vingette was what I was originally referring too. Derek has his own 58 1.2, so would be interested to know what version he has. Regardless he has the hard vingette at f8 on his, at least at infinite.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
That swirl before the hard vingette was what I was originally referring too. Derek has his own 58 1.2, so would be interested to know what version he has. Regardless he has the hard vingette at f8 on his, at least at infinite.
I’ll check the MFD on mine as you suggest.
Hopefully just moving to using a single adapter like the Kipon MD would fix the issue. If not, then at least we may have discovered something interesting about the different versions of the 58 1.2.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, something is strange is going on there. Look at the optical swirl and perspective change in the corners, particularly the bottom left corner. I've never see that kind of circular swirl on mine. Yours looks like it's showing more of the image circle than it's supposed to even on 44x33. It reminds me of the shots I see with the GFX Pentax 67 focal reducer, the one where the manufacurer overshot the calculations and ended up reducing the image down too far. They still sell it, but with a disclaimer. Could the adapters involved in your setup have the lens too close or too far away from the sensor? Have you tested the MFD to make sure it matches Minolta's specs? Either that or there were some serious improvements made between your version with the metal focus ring and mine with the hard rubber....Show more →
yeah, i'm pretty sure going through the m-mount adapter is causing our issues. nehemiah's 58/1.2 is the same version as yours and mine is an earlier version with the scalloped focus ring. also, i've shot more than tens of different copies of the rokkor and have not found any consistent optical differences across versions other than yellowing in the ones using thoriated glass (they show significantly less copy variation than contax lenses too ).
all the other f/1.2 slr lenses i've shot through the m-mount adapter on the GFX show the same sort of hard vignetting too. i think the optical requirements of an f/1.2 lens exceed the diameter of the m-mount if the rear element is in front of the mount.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
That swirl before the hard vingette was what I was originally referring too. Derek has his own 58 1.2, so would be interested to know what version he has. Regardless he has the hard vingette at f8 on his, at least at infinite.
I’ll check the MFD on mine as you suggest.
Ok, I went and found an image that shows the swirl on mine. I guess I hadn't looked at an image where the out of focus foreground was so close to the lens. But the hard vignette is still not there, though. This is the full 44x33 like the others.
It's crabapple time again, but wind and weather have kept me from doing much in the past couple of weeks. A few shots from several evenings ago, showing the Contax 645 120/4 apo-makro on my GFX50S. It's a superb lens in every way.
mike reid wrote:
Flower montage from a Carmel CA parking strip. Contax 50/1.4]
I finally ordered myself a copy of this lens off eBay. Your shots with it here and in the Contax thread are really nice. The Contax shots look even better than the what the ZE/ZF 50 1.4 delivers.
That bokeh in the second shot is the true definition of "painterly". Wow!
Dream team of lenses there. Looks like you could use the Contax 35 1.4 to fill in the gap between 23 and 50 and give you a focus distance of 1' (not sure if that equates to an increase in magnification versus the 50 1.4 at 1.5', though). I've been considering the Contax 28/2 because the close focus is crazy at 9.34", but I'm not sure about coverage. The 35 1.4 covers very well, so if the 28 doesn't, it wouldn't be of as much use. I don't mind vignetting and soft corners, but wouldn't want to have hard vignetting. Have you tried this or seen anyone use the 28/2 on 44x33?
Right now I have a nice lineup of Minolta MD and Contax C/Y lenses coming together:
Contax 35 f1.4
Contax 50 f1.4 (on its way to me)
Minolta 50 f3.5 Macro
Minolta 58 f1.2
Minolta 85 f2.8 Varisoft
Contax 100 f2
I only recently realized the heavy vignetting on the Min58 1.2 was fully correctable, so I've been rediscovering that one.
My casual observation is the color on the Minolta lenses seems more vivid and have wider contrast (Leica-ish) while the Contax have more snap/microcontrast. I love both renderings and feel like a kid going into their toy box to pick the perfect one each time I go to shoot.
I currently don't have the GF 110/120, so the Minolta 85 f/2.8 VS and Contax 100 f/2 fill in the gap nicely:
23
45
63 (+ Mitakon 65 1.4 on it's way to me)
250/1.4x
Of course the other gap the Minolta/Contax fill is the lack of f/1.4 and f/1.2, which is a huge driver of adapted lens use on the GFX. There are things I would simply refuse to use the GFX for without f/1.4 or wider – darker interiors like say a coffee shop or restaurant – without which I wouldn't be able to use the GFX as a single-system solution for vacations. I used to dual-carry the Leica Q with the GFX just for that purpose – an f/1.7 lens. The extra light and subject separation make a huge difference. f/2.8 on the GF 45 and 63 just can't equal the look.
If I had to assemble a set combining both adapted and GF (like choosing between children, lol):
GF 23
Contax 35 f1.4
Minolta 58 f1.2
Contax 100 f2
GF 250 + 1.4x
MCEX-45G (allows use of 1.4x with 45mm and above focal lengths)
Whew. That was a longer response than I expected to write
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
It's crabapple time again, but wind and weather have kept me from doing much in the past couple of weeks. A few shots from several evenings ago, showing the Contax 645 120/4 apo-makro on my GFX50S. It's a superb lens in every way.
Danny, that bokeh in the second shot from the Contax 645 120 macro is so painterly and looks so much like the bokeh from the Contax 50 1.4 C/Y that Mike posted. I still need to try my Contax 100 f/2 C/Y wide open near MFD and see how the bokeh compares to both these lenses. I'm thinking it might be a great lens to use with the 18G extension tube.
Used a tripod this time – wow, that was so much easier
I compared all f-stops from f/2 through f/22, plus tried combining the f/5.6 bokeh around the edges with f/11 in the center in Photoshop, but I didn't like the look as much as the single f/5.6 shot – too much character lost stopping down. f/5.6 was the best f-stop for color, contrast, bokeh, overall rendering. Focus stacking will be the next experiment
Dang, what a nice rendering even at infinity. Can't wait for mine to show up.
The 28/2 would be an expensive experiment, but might be worth the risk. I can always turn around and sell it back on eBay since there is a decent market for that lens with the pro video crowd.
All this has me thinking how the Contax 100-300 could be a better solution for me than the GF 100-200 if I got the GFX 100 with IBIS (since I don't normally shoot my landscapes on a tripod).
Hurricane Hill was living up to its name and blowing insanely hard. That last shot was in between helping others with their selfies and group shots and then back to the car where the trunk threatened to become a guillotine..
I thought this view had potential further down the road with the river leading to the sea but didn't get back there. Contax 50
highdesertmesa wrote:
Danny, that bokeh in the second shot from the Contax 645 120 macro is so painterly and looks so much like the bokeh from the Contax 50 1.4 C/Y that Mike posted. I still need to try my Contax 100 f/2 C/Y wide open near MFD and see how the bokeh compares to both these lenses. I'm thinking it might be a great lens to use with the 18G extension tube.
I **love** Mike's foxglove/snapdragon bokeh with the 50/1.4 C/Y. Now I immediately wonder how it compares to my 50/1.4 ZE, which is my favorite flower lens due to its "painted" bokeh. I only shoot it wide open; the effect is lost stopping down even a small amount. Mike, you also have the ZE, no? How would you compare them?
Jim, I look forward to seeing what your Contax 100/2 does for flower bokeh. The ZE version is not painterly at all and I'm curious about the Contax also.
I have a 28/2 ZE but I've never had the opportunity to compare to the Contax "Hollywood". I suspect they're pretty similar. The ZE does poorly on GFX, with plenty of heavy vignetting; I'd consider it usable only for 1:1 or pano.
I'll have to do a side by side comparison of the Contax 100-300 with the GF 100-200 and 250. The Contax is really good, although it vignettes at close range from something like 100-150 or so. Need to do more testing.
).
to fill in the gap between 23 and 50 and give you a focus distance of 1' (not sure if that equates to an increase in magnification versus the 50 1.4 at 1.5', though). I've been considering the Contax 28/2 because the close focus is crazy at 9.34", but I'm not sure about coverage. The 35 1.4 covers very well, so if the 28 doesn't, it wouldn't be of as much use. I don't mind vignetting and soft corners, but wouldn't want to have hard vignetting. Have you tried this or seen anyone use the 28/2 on 44x33?
